Re: [HACKERS] JDBC connections to 9.1

Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Yeah.  I'm thinking what we should do here is revert the change, with a
>> note in the source about why, and also change the JDBC driver to send
>> and expect "UTF8" not "UNICODE" (which as Kevin says is more correct
>> anyway).  Then in a few releases' time we can un-revert the server
>> change.

> Well initially my concern was that people would have a challenge in
> the case where they had to re-certify their application if we made
> this change, however I realize they will have to do this anyway since
> upgrading to 9.1 is what necessitates it.

I don't see any backwards compatibility risk, if that's what you mean.
Every backend release since 7.3 has treated client_encoding 'UTF8' and
'UNICODE' the same, and earlier releases didn't accept either one.

            regards, tom lane